Re: Booting CD #1 in OpenBSD 4.2 sets with old bios
Hi,
We won't be sending out any CD#1's after all. The 4.2 CD#1 boot problem
has been sufficiently well identified that we don't need anyone to test
more CD #1's for us. It turns out that the 4.2 layout uncovered an old
bios bug in some early m
Austin Hook wrote:
I understand that some people have experienced boot problems with CD #1 in
the new 4.2 release set, mainly with older machines. There are cases
where the same CD works with a newer machine, but fails to boot with an
older one. I presume this means the track alignment is margi
I had this problem. There are two drives in the machine, so I just
booted from a burned 42.iso CDR and put the factory pressed disc into
drive 2. Worked fine. Don't bother sending a replacement CD to me.
Keep the funds in the project!
On 10/30/07, Chris Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > We w
> We would like to send out replacement CD's for anyone with those problems
> so that we can see if the problem is with all CDs of the current release,
> or only with some of them.
>
> Please contact me if you have seen this problem.
>
> Austin Hook
> OpenBSD distribution
> Milk River, AB
>
I have
> >On Mon, Oct 29, 2007 at 06:42:19PM +, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> >> On 2007/10/29 10:49, Austin Hook wrote:
> >> > I understand that some people have experienced boot problems with CD #1
> >> > in
> >> > the new 4.2 release set, mainly with older machines.
> >> [...]
> >> So, it may be worth
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, Barry Miller wrote:
On Mon, Oct 29, 2007 at 06:42:19PM +, Stuart Henderson wrote:
On 2007/10/29 10:49, Austin Hook wrote:
I understand that some people have experienced boot problems with CD #1 in
the new 4.2 release set, mainly with older machines.
[...]
So, it may b
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 10:49:09 -0700 (MST), Austin Hook wrote:
>I understand that some people have experienced boot problems with CD #1 in
>the new 4.2 release set, mainly with older machines. There are cases
>where the same CD works with a newer machine, but fails to boot with an
>older one. I pr
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 17:29:42 -0400, Barry Miller wrote:
>On Mon, Oct 29, 2007 at 06:42:19PM +, Stuart Henderson wrote:
>> On 2007/10/29 10:49, Austin Hook wrote:
>> > I understand that some people have experienced boot problems with CD #1 in
>> > the new 4.2 release set, mainly with older mach
On Mon, Oct 29, 2007 at 06:42:19PM +, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2007/10/29 10:49, Austin Hook wrote:
> > I understand that some people have experienced boot problems with CD #1 in
> > the new 4.2 release set, mainly with older machines.
> [...]
> So, it may be worth someone with an affected
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 18:42:19 +, Stuart Henderson wrote:
>On 2007/10/29 10:49, Austin Hook wrote:
>> I understand that some people have experienced boot problems with CD #1 in
>> the new 4.2 release set, mainly with older machines.
>
>I don't have a suitable machine to try it on, but amd64 boot
On 2007/10/29 10:49, Austin Hook wrote:
> I understand that some people have experienced boot problems with CD #1 in
> the new 4.2 release set, mainly with older machines.
I don't have a suitable machine to try it on, but amd64 boot loader is
now able to boot an i386 kernel, and I suspect (but am
--- Austin Hook [Mon, Oct 29, 2007 at 10:49:09AM -0700]: ---
> older one. I presume this means the track alignment is marginal in some
> cases.
i swapped CD drives and that solved my problem. but it sounds as if i
should go retrieve that old drive from the garbage now, as i just
chalked it up to
I understand that some people have experienced boot problems with CD #1 in
the new 4.2 release set, mainly with older machines. There are cases
where the same CD works with a newer machine, but fails to boot with an
older one. I presume this means the track alignment is marginal in some
cases.
I
13 matches
Mail list logo
